APHC010571542022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34706/2022 Between: Thota Kasi Visweswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) The Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent 1 to 4 in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment and trying to demolish the buffalo cattle shed situated in R.S.No.43 of Ramalingeswara Nagar with in the area of Vijayawada Municipality Corporation, without following due process of law and in making efforts to dispossess the petitioner there from, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19(1), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to refrain from doing so…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the property situated in R.S.No.43 of Ramalingeswara Nagar, where he has constructed a shed with asbestos sheets for buffalo cattle. The 4th respondent, claiming ownership of the property, has filed O.S.No.98 of 2021 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, duly enclosing I.A.No.691 of 2022 seeking mandatory injunction for the removal of structures existing in the said property. Wherein, the said Court directed the parties to maintain status quo until further orders. 4. But in the meanwhile, the 4th respondent having political influence with an intention to dispossess the petitioner from the said property has approached the 3rd respondent and consequently the 3rd respondent issued a notice vide R.C.No.G6-113868/2022, dt.13.10.2022 to the petitioner directing him to remove the shed stating that it was constructed without obtaining any plan from GVMC. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that the staff of the 3rd respondent under the directions of the 4th respondent, visited the said property and openly proclaimed their intention to demolish the structure belonging to the petitioner, despite the order of status quo in O.S.No.691 of 2022. Challenging the said action, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter, wherein it is stated that the petitioner along with one Thota Ramesh has jointly erected shed in R.S.No.43 without obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent. As per Section 428 & 429 of A.P.M.C. Act, 1955, prior to erecting shed, they shall furnish drawings and plans along with the documents related to prove their right of title and ownership of the property and shall obtain an approved plan for the construction of the shed in the site. But however, the petitioner failed to furnish the relevant documentary proof and also failed to obtain any permission from the respondent authorities. On identifying the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner as well as the said Thota Ramesh, the 2nd respondent issued statutory notice dt.01.08.2022 under Section 452(1) of A.P.M.C. Act, 1955 demanding the petitioner to furnish the title rights over the said property and drawings of the construction and also to stop the construction and remove the structures erected by them. There upon, the petitioner along with the said Thota Ramesh has submitted a representation dt.17.08.2022 informing that they have erected thatched huts for rearing cattle 25 years ago and due to floods the thatched huts were flown away. Thereafter, while they were erecting thatched houses, the Town Planning staff removed the huts and issued notice on 01.08.2022 and also stated that MRO has given possession certificate to them and accordingly they have erected temporary huts for eking out their livelihood and they did not constructed permanent structures in that place and requested the 2nd respondent to permit them to raise thatched huts for rearing cattle. But however, they have failed to produce the possession certificate issued by the MRO. 7. It is further stated that while the matter being so, the 4th respondent herein has submitted a letter to the 2nd respondent stating that he owned ancestral property of an extent of Ac.2.34 cents of land in R.S.No.43 situated in Krishna Lanka, Division No.16, near to old VBM college, Ramalingeswara Nagar and the property is in his absolute possession. It is also stated that the Irrigation Department has utilized some extent of his property for the construction of retaining wall. Thereafter, the 4th respondent filed W.P.No.23462 of 2017 and W.P.No.41717 of 2018 against the said Irrigation Department claiming compensation for the said land. But however, the petitioner and Thota Ramesh Babu has encroached into his property and erected the shed for rearing cattle and as such the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.92 of 2021 as against the petitioner and as well as the said Thota Ramesh Babu. On 23.07.2022 the 4th respondent has also filed an application in Spandana requesting the 2nd respondent to direct the Town Planning staff not to allow any constructions in his property. It is further stated that the Town Surveyor of the 2nd respondent furnished a report to the Corporation stating that as per RSR 1935 the property shown in the application of the 4th respondent situated in Patamata village in R.S.No.43 to an extent of Ac.374- 83 cents is Krishna River and it is a part of Government poramboku land. 8. On a perusal of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, it can be understood that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the 4th respondent vide O.S.No.98 of 2021, wherein a status quo order was passed. However, upon verification of the RSR 1935, the 2nd respondent has found that the land claimed by the 4th respondent in R.S.No.43 an extent of Ac.374.83 cents, is part of the Government poramboku land. Which proves that the said property neither belongs to the petitioner nor to the 4th respondent. But however, because of the pendency of the suit, the respondents are unable to initiate any further action against both the petitioner and the 4th respondent. But however, since the official respondents are not parties in the suit, they are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession the subject property. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 20.02.2025 JLV 182 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.34706 of 2022 Dt.20.02.2025 JLV